Homosexual Propaganda

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: classy
Its all for naught. Because in about 4 months or so a federal ban on same sex marriages will be passed. And it will survive a challenge and be enforced by the supreme court.

And then suddenly gay people will disappear and stop bothering you? :roll:

A federal ban on gay marriage would imo lead to an explosion in gay rights activism.

A federal ban on gay marriage is immpossible. Gay marriage can only be banned country wide by constitutional ammendment. The Supreme Court however could legalize gay marriage across the country if they wanted.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

I read some of your posts yeah But as a early draft of my previous post would have contained i don't really care about whether you don't like gay people at all, since i cba to read through the posts in this thread. I scanned them, and i don't remember names.

And for the hell of it you can replace the "you" in that post with someone else.
That's irrelevant.

My point is that you are a bigot if you don't like gay people (especially because men have a high chance of liking women making out ).

If you wanted to discuss it can't you just mend this misunderstanding and tell me what you think is wrong instead of insulting me.

You are correct in the fact that if someone hates another because they're homosexual, they are a bigot. However, if someone disagrees with homosexuality, that doesn't not make them a bigot, so spare us the name calling crap.

Homosexuals are welcome to do whatever they want. They have that freedom. I don't agree with it, but that's my opinion, I have a right to it, and that's the way it is. Has no bearing whatsoever on whether I think they're good people, just means they do something I don't agree with. Does that make me or anyone else who feels the same way a bigot? No, but people like you will jump on the chance to call us such because it's the only thread of hope you've got.

Similar tactic is used in crime. The criminal isn't really guilty, it's the law that is wrong, not the crime. A majority of people feel homosexuality is wrong, so those guilty say it's not homosexuality that's wrong, but the cause of these "anti-gay" feelings that is wrong.

Point is, people are going to have different opinions on what is right and what is wrong. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them a bad person. I have had many friends who were gay and I still consider them my friend, but I don't agree with what they're doing. Doesn't mean I don't like them, or care about them, or wouldn't do anything for them. But I won't support what they're doing. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I'll happily wear the crown of bigots while you wear the crown of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[mchammer]

I think that the question comes down to how much a school should try to influence the opinions of its students and how far should they go to do it. I say what good is a thought if it does not come naturally within yourself? Also, this would open the door for the school to moralize to the students about all kinds of things. They could have posters saying, "if your parents have an SUV they are hurting the country and are bad people". While many of us would agree that SUV's are undesireable, I would be uncomfortable with such blatent advocacy.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

 

[jordanz]

Basically, I am not a fan of gay men. Gay women? Sure, that's great.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mchammer
I think that the question comes down to how much a school should try to influence the opinions of its students and how far should they go to do it.

Schools have a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to protect all students, including gay students, from bullying. Basically the obligation is on the school to provide a safe environment for children. Currently, schools in the USA are not safe places for homosexual children and teenagers. I don't know what the situation is like in Canada. The only way to make schools safe for gay kids is to directly tackle the culture of homophobia which is prevalent throughout USA society and institutions. That is what posters like these are attempting to do. It's a fact that schools play a role in socializing children with regards to acceptable public behavior. The posters are basically a policy statement on what is acceptable in the school environment. Just as it is not acceptable to fling around racist or sexist language or terms of abuse, it is also not acceptable to use homophobic language or terms of abuse.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to many others and in a Democracy they are free to advocate their point of veiw. I think think that you are cherry picking only the quotes from the founding fathers that back up your posistion rather than looking at the bigger picture and what some of the other founding fathers have said, such as Alexander Hamilton. What exactly does total separation of church and state mean anyway, see we are now back at the same place again.

 

[jordanz]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mchammer
I think that the question comes down to how much a school should try to influence the opinions of its students and how far should they go to do it.

Schools have a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to protect all students, including gay students, from bullying. Basically the obligation is on the school to provide a safe environment for children. Currently, schools in the USA are not safe places for homosexual children and teenagers. I don't know what the situation is like in Canada. The only way to make schools safe for gay kids is to directly tackle the culture of homophobia which is prevalent throughout USA society and institutions. That is what posters like these are attempting to do. It's a fact that schools play a role in socializing children with regards to acceptable public behavior. The posters are basically a policy statement on what is acceptable in the school environment. Just as it is not acceptable to fling around racist or sexist language or terms of abuse, it is also not acceptable to use homophobic language or terms of abuse.

I think we're going to need a poster with two girls making out to tackle this thing head-on.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mchammer
I think that the question comes down to how much a school should try to influence the opinions of its students and how far should they go to do it.

Schools have a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to protect all students, including gay students, from bullying. Basically the obligation is on the school to provide a safe environment for children. Currently, schools in the USA are not safe places for homosexual children and teenagers. I don't know what the situation is like in Canada. The only way to make schools safe for gay kids is to directly tackle the culture of homophobia which is prevalent throughout USA society and institutions. That is what posters like these are attempting to do. It's a fact that schools play a role in socializing children with regards to acceptable public behavior. The posters are basically a policy statement on what is acceptable in the school environment. Just as it is not acceptable to fling around racist or sexist language or terms of abuse, it is also not acceptable to use homophobic language or terms of abuse.

Indeed that is well writen. However I think that a poster made to accomplish such goals would be very different than the one in the OP.

 

[aidanjm]

I have had many friends who were gay and I still consider them my friend, but I don't agree with what they're doing. Doesn't mean I don't like them, or care about them, or wouldn't do anything for them. But I won't support what they're doing. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I'll happily wear the crown of bigots while you wear the crown of arrogance and ignorance.

It makes you a little bit of a bigot. Not the worst kind of bigot (you aren't roaming the streets looking for random gay people to bash or kill) but a bigot nevertheless. Your particular brand of bigotry is pretty harmless in the long run unless of course it leads you to do things like vote for people like George W. Bush.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Stew
At my high school, we actually have posters showing 2 hockey players kissing passionately that say "SHOCKING? For the homophobes! "

(Posters at my school)

Now that is going too far.

I don't want people telling me what I'm allowed to find offensive or not. I can disagree with homosexuality as much as I want, and that is not homophobia.

There are other posters that say, "HOMOPHOBIA FREE ZONE". Excuse me? So, you're telling me that if I find homosexuals frightening, I can't enter?

Our school celebrated International Anti-Homophobia day yesterday. This, for me is just too much.

What do you guys think about this?

ho?mo?pho?bia \'ho-me-"fo-be-e\ noun (1969)
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
ho?mo?pho?bic \-"fo-bik\ adjective

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.


Homophobia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beng scared of homosexuals, is the definition of homophobia.

Homophobes sound the same as the KKK and the neo-Nazis but they hate homosexuals instead of other minorities.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

what good is a government devoid of all morals and concerned only with its own incumbency rather than the good of its people?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: ruffilb

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm confused... heterosexual PDA is usually against the rules in most high schools... but homosexual PDA is encouraged and even advertised on posters?

That's what I was thinking.

And this poster would be *SO* much better with too girls making out.

If you look at the numbers the majority would prefer that.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mchammer



I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

what good is a government devoid of all morals and concerned only with its own incumbency rather than the good of its people?

Whoa ther, we are going to need a whole other thread to settle that.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm confused... heterosexual PDA is usually against the rules in most high schools... but homosexual PDA is encouraged and even advertised on posters?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: classy
For you Vic-toria

Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

Ah... yet more picking and choosing in your "literal" interpretation. That is Paul describing the judgement of God upon sinners, not the judgement of classy, whom God commanded to love all men regardless of their sins. There is quite a difference there FYI.

The very beginning completely deals with homosexuality and you know it. Any idiot can clearly see he is condemning homosexuality in detail.

Nonsense. It is clear that Paul is talking about men who are not naturally sexually attracted to other men. He does not speak to men who are naturally sexually attracted to other men. The former group, the group spoken of by Paul, are not homosexuals in the general sense. More likely, they were pederasts, since pederasty was actually quite commonplace in ancient Greece. Similarly commonplace was the act of sodomizing captives taken in battle in order to degrade them. These were more likely the behaviors denounced by Paul. A loving and consensual sexual relationship between adult men is not.

But people like you need to pay attention to verse 32 while your out here promoting this slop.

It never ceases to amaze me the inability of individuals like yourself to distinguish the defending of a person's right to behave a certain way from the actual promotion of said behavior. For example, I will quickly leap to defend a person's freedom to say things I might consider offensive, but that doesn't mean I'm promoting that person's message.

In Corinthians and hebrews we are commanded not to be joined with those who we know are perpetual sinners, ala homosexuals.

But the bible doesn't declare homosexuality to be sinful.

You can try to distort and run out love and all that nonsense, but fact is the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength. And true Love is showed by a person's actions, if he loves God he or she would not being practicing homosexality.

Says you, not the Bible.

{snip}

-Garth

 

[Red Dawn]

Jesus prefered the company of men. Ever wonder why he didn't marry when all men his age were married back then?

Judas to Jesus "I can't quit you"

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Stew
At my high school, we actually have posters showing 2 hockey players kissing passionately that say "SHOCKING? For the homophobes! "

(Posters at my school)

Now that is going too far.

I don't want people telling me what I'm allowed to find offensive or not. I can disagree with homosexuality as much as I want, and that is not homophobia.

There are other posters that say, "HOMOPHOBIA FREE ZONE". Excuse me? So, you're telling me that if I find homosexuals frightening, I can't enter?

Our school celebrated International Anti-Homophobia day yesterday. This, for me is just too much.

What do you guys think about this?

ho?mo?pho?bia \'ho-me-"fo-be-e\ noun (1969)
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
ho?mo?pho?bic \-"fo-bik\ adjective

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.


Homophobia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beng scared of homosexuals, is the definition of homophobia.

Homophobes sound the same as the KKK and the neo-Nazis but they hate homosexuals instead of other minorities.

yup, not liking people for any rational reason. homosexuals are not that way by choice. not liking them just because they are gay is like not likeing asian people just because they are asian. its irrational.

all the scientific evidence points to it not being a choice. human sexuality is more complicated then that. personal experience should have taught you that anyways, but i guess some people can really turna blind eye to reason because of religious nonsense. like with creationism theres no amount of disinformation they won't spew against homosexuality when trying to "save souls". like the suicide bomber, they can justify quite a lot of evil in the name of the lord.

and yea don't bring up the bible unless you want to get into what kinds of seafood are off limits and such other nonsense too. cherry picking..cherry picking wee!

 

[aidanjm]

.

 

[Tab]

First things first, I am not gay but I also have no problems with same-sex marriage. I do however, find homosexsual and even some hetrosexsual PDAs rather disgusting.

Originally posted by: Garth
But the bible doesn't declare homosexuality to be sinful.

'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Homosexsuals, put along side thieves? I don't know what you have to say, but I am pretty sure theft is going to be considered a sin... and so would homosexsuality or at least the act of it...

 

[Red Dawn]

Funny how Christians glorify blood thirst murders yet reel in disgust over Homo's

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm way over the top.

If 2 guys are guy and want to hook up and get married whatever thats thier problem. I do not want to see posters of them in the school.

I agree. Regardless of whether or not you have a problem with homosexuality(I have no problem with it), there should not be posters hanging up promoting homosexuality nor heterosexuality. Your sexuality is your business, not mine, nor anyone elses. I do not want society to be brainwashed into thinking only hetersexuality is right, likewise, I do not want them to be brainwashed into thinking only homosexuality is right. Let people live and learn. Forcing things on them is usually not a very successful method of education.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

I did. My point was "separation of church and state" is a made up liberal term.

Oh really???

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association)

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432)

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress)

It is plainly obvious that "separation of church and state" is the very spirit of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Why? Because the same people who wrote the fscking thing said so.

So, do you think you'll keep spreading that lie, JS80?

I think it is silly to say that separation of church and state is a made up liberal term, however it is important to note that it is not in the Constituiton. It is job of the Supreme Court to work out exactly what the first Ammendment means. They have decided among other things that school prayer is not allowed, but that public money can pay for bussing to religious schools.

"Right to privacy" isn't there either. It is plain to see, by the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, that the first amendment is MEANT to create a total separation of church and state.

what good is a government devoid of all morals and concerned only with its own incumbency rather than the good of its people?

What makes you think morality is the exclusive domain of religion? Are you so blind as to believe there is no morality in the absence of religion?